Tafsir of Al-Mujadilah 58:2

(Those among you who zihar their wives)—This commences an explanation of the status of zihar in itself, its legal ruling, and the investigation into the acceptance of that woman’s plea and her complaint, by way of starting a new subject.

Zihar linguistically is the masdar (verbal noun) of dhahara, which is a mufa'ala form derived from dahr (back). It is intended to denote various meanings that return to the "back" in meaning and form, depending on the purpose. One says: dhahara Zaydun 'Amran, meaning he faced his back with his own back literally. Likewise, when he confronts him [with hostility], even if they do not literally face back-to-back, because confrontation necessitates such an alignment. And dhaharahu when he supports him, because it is said: "his back was strengthened when he supported him." And dhahara bayna thawbayn (he wore two garments) when he wore one over the other, because the part of each garment adjacent to the other is considered the "back" of the garment. And dhahara from his wife when he says to her: "You are to me like the back of my mother." The utmost that is necessitated is that the word "back" in some of these constructions is metaphorical, which does not prevent it from being the root of derivation, as the derivative would also be metaphorical. This latter usage is the meaning for which the verses were revealed.

The Hanafis define it in Islamic law as: comparing one’s spouse, or a part of her referred to as the whole (such as the head), or a common fractional part (such as a third), to a relative prohibited to him [for marriage] permanently, or to a part of her/him that he is forbidden to look at.

It is related from the Shafi'is that it is the comparison of her, or a part of her, to a prohibited person (by blood, nursing, or affinity), or to a part of him that is not mentioned for honor, such as the back or the chest. Likewise, parts that are mentioned for her, such as the eye or the head, if the meaning of zihar—which is the comparison to the prohibition of the mother—is intended. It is not [the case] if honor is intended or if the intent is absolute, according to the more correct opinion. Specifying the prohibited one as the "mother" is an old position of al-Shafi'i (may mercy be upon him). The details of this are in the jurisprudence books of both groups.

Zihar in the aforementioned sense was considered divorce in the Age of Ignorance. It is said: and in early Islam. Some reported that it was a divorce that necessitated a permanent prohibition from which there was no return. It was also said: It was not a divorce in every respect, but rather one that left the woman suspended—neither a wife nor a single woman free to marry another. Some prominent scholars mentioned that they used to regard it as a divorce reinforced by an oath of abstinence, and for this reason, the Shafi'is said that it contains two aspects. God willing, the indication of its legal ruling will come later.

It is connected with min (from) even though it is transitive in itself, because it implies the meaning of "distancing," as you have heard that it was a divorce and thus a distancing. Regarding the back in their saying: "You are to me like the back of my mother," it is said: it is a metaphor for the womb, for one only rides the womb, so "like the back of my mother" means "like her womb," based on the relation of proximity, and because it is its column; but the reasons for it being diverted from the literal meaning are not clear. It is also said: The back was specified because it is the place of mounting, and the wife is the "mount" of the husband; hence the mount is called a dahr. It is also said: It was specified because intercourse with the wife from her back (anal intercourse) was forbidden, so approaching the mother from her back is more forbidden, and thus the aggravation is increased.

The inclusion of (among you) in the verse is for the purpose of vivid depiction and branding [the act] as ugly, because zihar was specific to the Arabs. From this, it is known that it is not part of the concept of the "description" (sifat) such that one could argue from it the invalidity of a dhimmi’s (non-Muslim citizen) zihar, as was reported from the Malikis. Hence, the Shafi'is, as well as the Hanbalis, say it is valid from the dhimmi and the harbi (enemy non-Muslim) due to the generality of the verse. The Hanafis say: It is not valid from them. In one narration from Abu Hanifah, it is valid from the dhimmi, but the relied-upon narration is the lack of validity because he is not among those obligated to perform expiation. The Shafi'is criticized the Hanafis in their saying it is valid from him, while requiring the intention in expiation and faith in the slave [to be freed], and the impossibility of his ownership of him, because the disbeliever cannot own a believer. Some of their prominent scholars said: The disbelievers are subject to the liabilities (of Islamic law), and the intention for a disbeliever is like the expiation by emancipation, for the sake of differentiation—as in the payment of debts—not fasting, because a physical act of worship is not valid from him. He does not transition from it to feeding [the poor] because he is capable of it through Islam; if he is incapable, he transitions [to feeding] and intends it for differentiation as well. His ownership of a Muslim is imagined through things like inheritance or his slave embracing Islam, or he says: "O Muslim, emancipate your slave on behalf of my expiation," and he complies. If none of that is possible and he is a wealthy person who has performed zihar, he is prevented from intercourse because he is capable of ownership by embracing Islam and purchasing him. End quote.

In the books of some colleagues, such as al-Bahr and others, there is a discussion with the Shafi'is on this issue, containing arguments and counter-arguments that are not without some merit, and the reason for that is the lack of research into their authoritative books. The two Haramis and Abu 'Amr read yuzzahiruna with the shaad (stress) on the za and the ha. The two brothers [Hamza and al-Kisa'i] and Ibn 'Amir read yuzahiruna (as a present tense of zahara). From him also, yatazaharuna (present tense of tazahara), and also from him, yatazaharuna (present tense of tazahara).

The conjunctive noun (Them) is the subject (mubtada’), and its predicate is omitted—i.e., "they are wrong"—and its evidence has been put in its place, which is the Most High’s saying: (they are not their mothers). Or, it is the predicate itself—i.e., their wives are not their mothers in reality, so it is a pure lie.

Al-Mufaddal narrated from 'Asim: (ummahatuhum) in the nominative case, following the dialect of Tamim. Ibn Mas'ud read it as bi-ummahatihim with the addition of the letter ba'. Al-Zamakhshari said: "In the dialect of those who use the accusative—meaning the Hijazis—i.e., with the ba' of the predicate." This means that they are the ones who add the ba', unlike the Tamimis. He followed Abu 'Ali al-Farisi in this, but it was refuted because the opposite has been heard, such as the saying of al-Farazdaq, who is a Tamimi: "By your life, Ma'n is not abandoning his right, nor is he one who does evil, nor is he easy."

(They are not their mothers)—i.e., they are not their mothers in reality (except those who gave birth to them). Thus, no one should be compared to them in sanctity except those whom Allah Almighty has linked to them, such as nursing mothers and the wives of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), for they have entered into the ruling of mothers. As for wives, they are the furthest thing from motherhood.

(And indeed, they are saying a detestable statement)—which the law, reason, and human nature also find detestable, as the indefinite noun indicates. The basis for the emphasis is that it is detestable; otherwise, their statement would be a confirmed matter. (And a falsehood)—meaning a baseless lie that deviates from the truth. The reason zihar is considered as such, by those who view it as a lying report to which the Lawgiver has attached prohibition and expiation, is obvious. As for those who view it as the initiation of a prohibition in the law—like divorce, which is the apparent view—the reason is that it is in consideration of what it entails of linking the wife to the mother, which contradicts the requirements of the marriage bond.

(And indeed, Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving)—meaning He is excessive in pardoning and forgiving, so He forgives what preceded it and pardons whoever committed it, absolutely or through repentance. From these verses, it is known that zihar is forbidden; in fact, they said it is a major sin because it involves a venture into overturning the ruling of Allah Almighty and replacing it without His permission. This is more dangerous than many major sins, for its implication would be disbelief were it not for the absence of that belief [in the heart], the possibility of it being a metaphor, and other factors. Hence, the Almighty called it (a detestable statement and a falsehood).

It was only disliked, according to some Shafi'is, to say "you are forbidden," because the marriage bond and absolute prohibition can coexist, unlike zihar with the prohibition that mimics the prohibition of the mother. Hence, the "great expiation" was made obligatory here, while there—according to them—is the expiation of an oath. His saying, the Most High...